The United States Has Taken a Disturbing Turn

For everyone who looks to the American tradition as a bastion of liberty, the direction that this country has recently taken, which runs counter to the values and principles professed by the Founding Fathers, seems sad and worrying.

Donald Trump has begun his administration insulting journalists with whom he does not agree and denying access to White House press conferences as if he were the owner of the place. Instead of expressing his disagreement, he chooses to claim that his opponents are dishonest. Instead of safeguarding the sacred freedom of speech which should be the hallmark of a republic, he inclines toward aggression.

On two consecutive instances, after Trump’s xenophobic executive orders were halted by legal means, Trump reacted with harsh remarks, completely at odds with the presidential bearing necessary for the separation of powers. He reacted inappropriately in the same way with members of the legislative branch when his proposal to reform the health care system was shut down. Trump’s proposed reform would have replaced the current system with another system that had just as many fundamental flaws.

Trump began his administration, then, with repeated attacks on basic institutions, to which he added tax breaks at odds with announcements for astronomical increases in public spending. These actions are the best way to provoke a massive fiscal crisis that would be even bigger than the still-present crisis if you take into account the meaning of the colossal debt which now exceeds one hundred percent of the GDP.

With this unfavorable beginning and with a highly negative image in the eye of the public and most of the reputable press, and without seeking counsel or the approval of Congress, he gave the order to bomb Syria. The facts of the poisonous and lethal gas attack are still unknown and as three-time presidential candidate Ron Paul, among others, has emphasized, it is still not completely certain whether it was caused by rebels against the tyrant Basha al-Assad or by al-Assad himself. And then there was the deployment of the “mother of all bombs” over Afghanistan, which has increased the conflict in these areas and between allies. This attack helped to revive the nationalistic spirit that already characterized the new government of the United States, a spirit that is in line with the electoral tumults of Europe: In France, the National Front; in Germany, the Alternative for Germany; in Denmark, the Danish People’s Party; in Switzerland, the Swiss Democrats; in Spain, Podemos; in Austria, the Freedom Party; in Italy, the North League; in Hungary, the Movement for a Better Hungary; and in England, the nationalist appeal of Brexit.*

In any case, the discussion hinges on the role of the United States as a global policing force. And for that, there is no better first place to look than in the thinking of General Washington and of John Quincy Adams. The former wrote: “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements.”

And on his part—pay special attention—Adams advised that “[The United States of] America goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all… She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example… She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom…She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.”

We can remember the tremendous fiascoes the United States was involved in in the 20th century in Vietnam, Somalia, Bosnia, Korea, Serbia-Kosovo, Iran, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, Haiti, Panama and the Dominican Republic, along with the recent myth of “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq and the subsequent “preventive war.” Ivan Eland explains the case of the Philippines in detail and concludes that “forces of the United States burned villages, destroyed harvest and livestock, tortured and executed prisoners, and killed innocent civilians.” We can also remember General Eisenhower, who, in his presidential farewell speech warned that “We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex…We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.”**

Niall Ferguson, one of the pioneers of counter-factual history, calls the participation of the United States in World War II into question, due to the fact that, although they eliminated the serial killer Hitler, they handed over a substantial part of Europe to Hitler 2.0 (Stalin) at the Yalta Conference. Of course, examining the question afterward, separated from the moment and the context, couldn’t be more convenient.

President Truman issued a mea culpa 15 years after creating the CIA in 1945 as a substitute for the Office of Strategic Services (created during WWII), stating that he never thought that this new agency would “serve to carry out assassinations, conspiracies against governments, torture, clandestine paramilitary operations cloaked in the most basic ethics, and espionage.”***

There are, without a doubt, many corrupt heads of government, but the extraordinary splendor of the United States—including its missteps—is, among other things, the result of taking seriously the values which we have illustrated with important quotations from its history. On the other hand, the bellicose actions of the United States do not seem prudent, especially given the consequences that these initiatives could have for the so-called “free world”—and given how much the situation has changed in regard to individual liberties. Under varying pretexts, today governments interfere in secret bank accounts, listen to phone calls, repeatedly abandon due process, all the while in the midst of suffocating regulations, growing tax burdens, immoral procedures such as the so-called “bailouts.” Those who work but have no lobbying power must foot the bill for businessmen who are either inept, irresponsible, or both, and financial commitments are constantly pushed back in order to renovate the debt ceiling.

We should not discard the possibility that the institutional frameworks and moral reserves of that country may finally step in and limit the mess, although to judge by what happened in the last elections both traditional parties are suffering a notable decline. What is at stake is the future of everyone who wants to live in peace, even though we must co-inhabit the planet with leaders of every kind who abandon key values for others which signal the rebirth of the nationalisms that have done so much damage.

*Editor’s note: While included in this list of nationalist parties, Podemos is a left-wing populist party in Spain.

**Editor’s note: The quoted text is a paraphrase of Eisenhower’s speech.

***Editor’s note: The original quotation, while accurately translated, could not be verified.